Public weighs in on GMO labeling standard

This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

To help determine how to implement the GMO labeling law signed into law last year, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service asked stakeholders to respond to 30 questions dealing with issues ranging from allowable thresholds for bioengineered substances to the specific labeling language that can be used by food manufacturers.

Now it has the answers, and there’s a lot for AMS to chew on before it proposes labeling regulations for the law, which is supposed to go into effect in July 2018 – only 10 months from now.

Some of the major players in the debate who weighed in by the Aug. 25 deadline cautioned USDA not to imply in any way, shape or form that bioengineered products are unsafe or unhealthy.

“USDA-AMS should reinforce the fact that the bioengineered food disclosure standard is a marketing standard, and not a health, safety, or nutrition standard,” the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF) said.

…

Options for labeling include text on a package, a symbol, or an electronic or digital link (QR code) disclosure. AMS has contracted for a study – due July 29 but not yet available – to look at how feasible it is for consumers to get the information digitally.

It is easier than ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation on pressing science issues, such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. No, vaccines are not harmful. Yes, the use of biotechnology, GMOs or gene editing to develop antigens for treatments including vaccines are part of the solution. To inform the public about what’s really going on, we present the facts and challenge those who don't. We can’t do this work without your help. Please support us – a donation of as little as $10 a month helps support our vital myth-busting efforts.